faith and freedom coalition's road to majority can't and here in washington. we are joined by matt lewis. then we will look at the national fatherhood initiative and public policy issues they promote. "washington journal" why the baucus andnator max dave camp discuss tax policy and irs oversight. facebook at the christian science monitor breakfast in washington for about one hour. -- baked spoke at the christian science monitor breakfast in washington for about one hour. >> everybody, please be seated. ok, thanks for coming, everyone. i'm dave cook from christian science monitor. our guests this morning and

nonpartisan alphabetical order are senate finance committee chairman max baucus and house ways and means committee chairman dave camp. representative camp was our guest two months ago. senator baucus'last appearance with the group was 14 years ago. i was not in the moderators chair then, so it cannot he something i said. a warm welcome to both of you. senator baucus group up on a 125 thousand-acre ranch and heard his law degree at stanford. after working for the securities and exchange commission, he returned to montana and at age 32, won a seat in the u.s. house. electedrs later, he was to the senate and served longer than anyone else in history. he was born in midland, part of the district he now represents. got elected to the michigan

house in 1988, won a seat in congress in 1980 and has been on the ways and means committee since 1993. he became chairman of the panel in 2011. now onto monday and mechanical matters -- first of all, my apologies for the sauna we are running this morning. as always, we are on the record. we will try to get the air conditioning fixed. please, no live logging and tweeting -- in short, no filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway -- under way. there's no embargo when the breakfast is over except that c-span has agreed not to use video of the session for at least one hour after the breakfast ends to give those of us in the room a chance to file. if you would like to ask a question, send me a subtle, nonthreatening signal, and i'll

happily call on one and all in the time we have. our guest decided to skip opening remarks, so we will go right to questions. --l allow the ceremonial saw softball all or two, and then we'll move around the table -- softball or two. it seems to be bipartisan week here at the monitor breakfast. earlier this week, we had senators talking about immigration. now, we have the chairman of the two most important financial committees in congress here on a bipartisan basis. do you want to give us a brief explication of how this all happened? >> well, i'll start. i believe that relationships are so important. and a lot in passing depends on trust, confidence, when you can spend time working with each other. i set up weekly meetings with

chuck grassley. i've been doing that for the last 10 years. met him every week. i think we did this together, dave and i -- i felt it a good idea that we meet every week to go over what our committees are doing. the meetings last about an hour. more than that, we are friends. we like each other. you know, it's chemistry. often, two senators from the same state -- doesn't make a difference whether they are the same party or different political parties -- don't get along with each other. often they do. it just kind of happens that way. personalities and chemistry and so forth. it's a great relationship we have.

we are great friends. neither of us want to be president. we are practical, pragmatic. we just work and out really well. >> max is right. we wanted to get this done, and i think he's the one that suggested it. you really find -- often, people visit me. this is still a face-to-face, people to people business in washington. with all the technology, and all the tools that we have, we still have to get to know one another. actually, i look forward to the meetings. dialogueve an ongoing every week, you actually can deal with the issues as they come up. we are trying to find solutions. tax reform is the big issue we are working on, but there are others. there have been some really

significant, bipartisan victories on trade that we have been able to work through, and we hope to have more. >> let me ask you -- chairman cap, you said earlier this week "but we have many chapters to go quarter made on passing -- many chapters to go" on passing tax reform. can you sketch out what the next chapter is on tax reform? >> obviously, we are continuing to -- i mean, there's a formal side of it in terms of continued hearings in the committee. we just had a hearing on tax havens yesterday. i thought what was interesting in that hearing -- obviously, there were three witnesses. all three of them said the same thing on many issues affecting that policy, so we are going to continue that. there have been well over 20 in the house, continuing the work of a bipartisan working group.

for example, in the house -- >> is there anything imposing on you as 2014 approaches >> -- as 2014 approaches? >> it looks like we have a little more time. in the house, we had a bipartisan working group with representative diane black and representative danny davis, and they are now working together to to find a way to deal with the tax provisions that deal with saving for college education and trying to find a way to simplify that so that people actually use it. instructionsges of for those 15 provisions. those two, as a result of those working groups, are trying to come together on that initiative. i see us working together in that way. i also expect that we will continue to do some outreach. i don't know if you want to mention -- >> yes, next chapter is -- dave is including his working groups. we have option papers.

we meet weekly thursdays. number nine was yesterday, so we have reached a point where we have done a lot of talking and a lot of learning, and the rubber is going to meet the road. we have to start making some proposals here. the next steps are more concrete in nature proposals coming out fairly soon. in addition, dave and i are going to travel around the country, and we are going to go to different cities and talk to people, families, consumers, business groups, just to try to help get a better idea of what people think about tax reform all around the country. we have the website, which is also helpful to reach people.

people can reach us more directly. the next steps are basically the end of the working groups and options papers and start coming up with some ideas. as dave said, the pressure point will be increasing the debt limit. at that point, i think we will find other next steps. >> last one for me, and then we will take some questions. chairman baucus, on the subject of the tax-exempt groups that figure into the alleged targeting by the irs, you said there are countless political organizations at both ends of the spectrum masquerading as social welfare groups in order to skirt the tax code. you continue that once the smoke of the current controversy clears, we need to examine the root of the issue and reform the nation cost a tax laws pertaining to those groups --

the nation's vague tax laws. do you see that as part of the package you are working on with chairman cap or being a standalone piece of legislation? >> i see it as part of a package. the irs regulations are, frankly, helping to spur and help people realize the need for warm -- reform. 1986 brought the code up-to- date, and a lot has happened since 1986. bet means the code has to has to be brought up to date again. tax exemptions are basically statutes that were passed a long time ago. the major leg was about 50 years ago, and then, a lot has happened. citizens united has unleashed a torrent of dollars seeking a

home. the most favorable home is donors do not have to be -- have to disclose about income. tax havens in my opinion should not be by a large spending for political purposes. there are other developing events which show how the code is so dated. once that is better realize, i think that will be more impetus to help us get reform. >> do you think chairman cap will be part of the package -- chairman camp >> i expect that the end of this, we will have legislative proposals. we are still early on in the legislation, and i will say that we are working on this in a bipartisan way both in the house and the senate together, so we have had bicameral and

bipartisan meetings on the issue, and we're just going to try to uncover the facts and go where they lead. once we get that concluded, i think there will be legislation that will come with that, and this is one of the issues that has been raised. we still do not know a lot of things about this -- for example, who directed this and the extent of it. >> i might add, too, i think a basic approach that works is that everything is on the table. after a while, we can decide what we take off the table, but at the very beginning, we have to start out with anything in the general area of tax reform should be on the table and we can see what we will do. the different pieces are somewhat unrelated. but if we start taking items off, other groups use that as justification for taking bears off, and i do not want to make

that decision yet -- justification for taking bears off -- justification for taking theirs. >> we've had a lot of time to think since the 1986 tax reform. i wonder what lessons you draw from that. what is different now and what is the same? what lessons do you draw from that? differently, what is -- what's the same is as then, today, the barnacles have built back up again. thee were 15,000 changes to code since 1986. 15,000. you have correlations, modifications, so forth. different groups want different things, congress goes along with them, and it has all built up. that is the same.

in addition, the public back then was quite upset with sheltering of income, and today, i think the public is quite upset with something else. part of it is sheltering, and another part is lost income from overseas operations. especially low-tax jurisdictions and tax havens. that is a populist concern -- not just populist, but a legitimate, american concern. what is different? back then, president reagan was the primary force pushing tax reform on a very reluctant congress. today, it is the congress. at least at this point, it is the congress and tax committee starting the ball rolling on tax reform, but the administration is not opposed.

it is a willing participant, and i think you will find the president more directly engaged. tax reform is going to help the american economy, help get jobs. in this comparative world of ours, we have to do everything we possibly can legitimately and reasonably to help american people, help american small business, help american multinational corporations, american companies compete better and have less red tape so they can focus more on jobs. it's a combination of substance and psychology, which i think will help spur the economy. >> i would just say that the tax code was broken and needed to be fixed, and the tax code is broken now. all three of our witnesses said

the tax code was broken. the other thing i would add is the world has changed. the ability to invest around the world with the click of a mouse is so much easier, so we have to look at what other countries have done. they have modernized their tax system, and we have not. the other thing, i think, that i think is somewhat similar is you have to be very persistent. that reform would not have happened without continual persistence and effort. as economy is not as strong it needs to be. we need to get the kind of growth in job creation and wage increases that we have not been seeing, and i think that is making a case. code has been layered upon layer of change, and it is time to look at it again, and that's what we are trying to do.

>> let me do a little bit of timekeeping here and tell you where we are going next. we are going to kim dixon next. a gentleman here whose name i'm blanking on -- having a senior moment, i'm sorry. that should take care of us. >> [inaudible] can you be a little more specific? >> my style -- to work with my committee. these sessions, these options are bipartisan, members-only,

and they are terrific. we are working together. one advantage to know major reform since 1986 is a lot of senators need to learn a lot more about the code, what is in it, and that is an advantage. the senators mutually asked lots of questions of staff at these meetings. it brings us together. we are talking together and a -- and a non-adversarial manner -- in a non-adversarial manner. i have some ideas, and i'm to speak with mike committee soon -- with my committee soon and present the ideas to them. i want to get some eyes from a bipartisan committee before i proceed. >> i thought when he said the robber was going to hit the road, we are taking a road trip, going around the country --

when he said the rubber is going to hit the road. trying to get a read around the country. andave adopted a website, together, we have about 10,000 submissions on the website. we have about 1000 followers on twitter. that is what we are trying to do. the other thing that we are also going to do is we are going to begin a series of bipartisan lunches, together with house and senate members to begin these discussions occurring in both of our committees. i'm meeting with every member of my committee individually. as i said, we have these working groups, but we will also continue to do some other outreach and continue to move this very important issue forward. >> that all sounds a little vague. [inaudible]

>> [inaudible] headlines in the morning is the question. >> stay tuned. it's coming. >> [inaudible] later finishing date for that. [inaudible] do you envision what realistically it would have to be attached to, and do you think -- how do you see the relationship between that and [inaudible] >> initially, it looks like we

were going to hit the debt limit in august. i think that would have meant congressional action sometime in july. given that revenues to the government are higher than anticipated and other factors, it looks as if we will not hit the debt limit until october -- maybe even mid-october. this is information the treasury has. we just are kind of estimating based on other things. as a result, in the house, we started talking about how we address that issue. i think given the fact that it is later, it is clearly now a post-august recess issue, but one of the items that has been suggested in our meeting has been -- is there a process, or is there someway to move forward on tax reform in connection connection with the debt limit? some have suggested entitlement reform in relation to the debt limit. most of the time, the debt limit is passed, whether it is a republican or democrat administration, with some policy matters attached to it. i think that is what people are exploring.

i do not think you will see decisions made about that until after the august recess now because of the much later timing on that. >> dave has seen every member of the committee. maybe i'm a masochist, but i have seen every senator privately both sides of the aisle, asking them what they want. in those sessions -- and we will learn a lot more in our joint sessions as well -- you will learn a lot. you will learn the little scenes that might develop and potentialin to find solutions essentially to the question you asked. notbig question, which has yet been asked, is -- what are you going to do with all the revenue generated from the base body? as we address base erosion. many say that is all for rate

reduction, and many say that is ok, but we will need some revenue. it gets to the point where we are starting to have to increase the debt limit. first of all, i want to make this clear -- the president wants a clean debt limit increase. i personally think that is good policy. we should have a clean debt limit increase. but i'm also enough of a realist to know that this is a big country. we have 535 members of ingres's. this is a democracy. different members of the house have different ideas on the subject. -- we have 535 members of congress. i find,"this senator on the other side of the aisle can see

a path toward more revenue." i have found that two or three times here. how much is rate reduction? how static is revenue? there is going to have to be some agreement. to answer your question, it is a process answer, not a substance answer, really. you go around to get more clues and ideas and you know where they are on some of the basic tax reform questions. i think when we get close to d- day, whenever it is -- september, october -- we will be in a pretty good position to know what works and was -- what does not work. >> will there be temporary tax leave for victims of hurricane sandy? if yes, when will it the? if not, why not?

>> i don't know. i cannot answer that question, and i'm focused on it. >> is the discussion on the table >> -- on the table? >> not my table. >> is it on your table, chairman camp? >> obviously, i'm aware of the issue. i do not see any immediate plans to move that, but that does not mean it will not continue to be discussed, but there's no immediate plan to move anything on that on the ways and means committee. >> [inaudible] >> i am aware of it. >> [inaudible] new york and new jersey residents. >> a lot of that was done administratively. what we want to make sure is -- is there really need for legislative action? are the problems going to be able be taken care of administratively, as they were i and other hurricane-type disasters? that is what we are really trying to draw out.

>> after what we have been learning about the management failures at the irs with the tea party affair, beyond policy reform, is there need for a new mental restructuring of the internal revenue service? >> i think there may be. -- is there a need for a fundamental restructuring of the internal revenue service? >> i think there may be. this may be at best a fundamental error and at worst intentional. before we conclude, we really need to know all the facts. we are just moving into the interview of witnesses. we have interviewed a few. we will be interviewing many more. we are at the end of the week i hope getting documents from the irs that we have been seeking, so i hope we will get a clearer picture. clearly, the management was either intentionally not looking or, i would say, so out of touch, almost rising to the

level of wrong doing. again, i want to make sure i know exactly what happened, and it take some time to do that. >> i will agree. i would agree. our teams jointly are interviewing irs employees. i got out of court yesterday with my staff, basically concluding that there are real problems. dave touched on it. the office is almost cut off from d.c. -- not entirely, but it seems to me, it's tough to get 90,000 employees -- it's tough to name the mall, but it is not managed well. there does need to be significant restructuring in the irs. whether that means congress has to do it, i don't not know -- i do not know.

but we have to make sure people are held accountable and not just left to go in their own direction. thee are going to get truth, and we are going to hold people accountable when we get the truth. >> we do not have all the information yet. >> are you using the power to get information from the irs? have you found out anything yet? >> we are beginning to use that yes -- we are beginning to use that, yes. >> [inaudible] >> is there a danger of race to the bottom with corporate tax rates? most of the rest of the oecd countries cut their rates. they seem to be willing to trade more -- foreign investment and job creation for more income and taxation.

if we cut, is there a chance that our competitors will take it one step lower again? >>, first i do think our nominal rate, our top rate, from a competitive perspective, is too high compared to other countries. there's no question that it should be lower. and the code does encourage many u.s. companies to invest overseas and build plants overseas. it can cause jobs to move overseas. i believe there should be very significant race broadening -- base broadening. there is a whole long list, as you know. one of the most expensive is accelerated depreciation. there are a bunch of them.

i believe any president has stated several times -- and the president has stated several times that corporate tax reform should be revenue neutral. it is not a race to the bottom because what you might lose with lower rates, you pick up with base prime, but that is by eliminating the tax expenditure. but i do think we need a system that is not a race to the bottom, but is -- but which helps american competitiveness, but also one which addresses based he rose and overseas, and we are not only country concerned with this -- days erosion -- base erosion overseas. foreign companies are also going to havens, so those countries themselves are losing corporate revenues because their

coats -- codes are not sufficiently dated. a month or two ago, the cover story of "the economist" was on this question. a long article on how this happened worldwide. it will be on the list of the g-eight and ireland -- g-8 in ireland. i do believe the issue must be addressed to stop companies from taking advantage of current tax laws. the only way to do that is by adjusting the laws and capturing current income that is not captured because so many assets art to general -- are digital. that has got to be discussed. >> i agree -- we do need to bring down our rates. i do not think you can sustain

being the highest corporate rate in the world. also what we need to address through corporate reform is the transference of intangibles or intellectual property. haveof the testimony we gotten is if we can bring our rate down, the incentive for doing some of that goes a way, but we will need base erosion provisions as well. the other point is there's about $1.7 trillion overseas that we want to try to get invested back. under our current laws, we cannot do that unless it is double taxed, so they do not do that. we are out of step. we are out of step with the world. it is very easy to find viable investments around the world, and that is occurring. if we want to rebuild our economy and create more jobs and get people back to work and increase their wages, we have to address this issue.

again, the president did put it in his budget -- revenue- neutral corporate reform. we look forward to working with him on that. >> at your first irs hearing, you said that the irs scandal was just the latest in a scandal of a culture of coverups and political intimidation in this administration. you said the truth was hidden from the american people just long enough to make it through the next election. do you still believe that? do you tie what happened with the irs to some broader culture of intimidation from the white house? [inaudible] is there a single tax exception on the personal side that you will eliminate? that you are willing right now to say, "i want a limit." >> first of all, let me say the

irs is part of the administration. we had been trying for two years to address this issue, so i was very angry in those comments about the lack of candor from high-ranking officials at the irs when several letters had gone from me and determined at the oversight subcommittee. we had a hearing a couple of days on this issue before the subcommittee. we were trying to get assistance, and let me just say -- the evidence we have so far is that donors were targeted as "gift taxes" because of their conservative political beliefs. conservative groups have had confidential irs tax information leaked as the targeting of hundreds of groups -- i do not know if you had a chance to see the witness hearings we have had, but it's pretty compelling what has happened to americans. so i'm pretty angry about this, and i will not stop until i find out what the truth is. we know that two years ago,

high-ranking officials at the irs knew about this and did not disclose it to the congress, even though we had been writing letters, and the senate had as well. and we know the treasury knew a year ago and did not let us know. that is not going to happen again. >> [inaudible] >> yes, i do have those, but i'm not going to reveal them today. facts here. we are still in the middle of that right now. both of us are. i talked to my office yesterday, uncovering, and there is a lot yet to go. >> i was going to ask an irs question, following up on tax expenditures. can you say how you feel about

mortgage interest reductions -- about the mortgage interest deduction? is that an obvious low hanging fruit that you can address? >> we are seven weeks into this roughly, and we still do not know more than we knew seven weeks ago, which is seen as rather unusual. how would you characterize what you are learning from the irs? [inaudible] have you gone any further on any of that? >> i will answer that one first. as i said, this is actually a painstaking process. much of this, to prove it, you need the documents, and we are just beginning to get those, i hope that the end of this week. we have just begun the

interviews, so this a lot more work to do. yes, it will take time. having been involved in investigations as a lawyer, this is actually more of a white-collar approach where you really need to get the documents and prove things, and that takes a long time. it's painstaking. again, i'm not going to try to jump to conclusions. we often talk in shorthand and say there's a lot of loopholes that we need to close, and i actually consider that not a loophole but policy. again, everything is going to be on the table. we are going to look at all of the items, and again, if there is consensus that an item is going to be performed -- reformed or is going to stay as is, that will affect where the rate ends up being, and that is the kind of trade-off and discussion that i want to have and i am having with members of my committee and members of the opposite committee. i have been working with kevin mccarthy and meeting with

members in general as well, but that's the discussion we will have. i think it is an important discussion to have, knowing that two/three of americans do not itemize -- 2/3 of americans do not itemize. we look at it all. i use the analogy of it is a blank sheet of paper, and we are going to see what goes in, not take the current code and see what comes out. >> i agree. >> [inaudible] can senator baucus away in on the irs issued textany sense of how that policy of trading -- [inaudible] >> we are in the middle of an investigation. we will see what happens. staff told me yesterday that it will be a few not terribly impressive people, frankly.

more questions asked, more people talked to, and we will find out. my style is to get the facts person to publicly state some conclusions. sometimes i do not get there, but that's my goal. >> do you agree with chairman camp that the debt limit is a good forcing mechanism for tax reform? and do you intend to move a debt limit bill either before or after the august recess? >> yes, well, do not know the date on which we will move the bill. i would like to move the bill in committee. we in the committee have talked

about it. we actually brought jack lew up, and it was a very good session about increasing the debt limit and so forth. that is a question that we will have to determine what makes the most sense as we proceed. i'm working in consultation with lots of different people to see what makes the most sense, but i will move at an appropriate time. what is your other question? >> do you agree that the debt limit makes a good -- >> yes, i think it does. you know your business is run by deadlines. deadline,you need a as we do in congress, to force ourselves to do something. i'm moving ahead on tax reform independent of everything else. that may get legs ahead of on its own -- i don't know

but it may be part of something else, but i'm still moving ahead with tax reform. this congress is going to have to make some decisions. >> there has been some chatter recently about a carbon tax. can you say whether, how, if, and why that might it into your initial reform? >> my mantra is everything is on the table. asare going to look at that well as some other alternative measures, and, frankly, that is going to be what we will be discussing in the committee next tuesday -- thursday. different sources of revenue. i want to take the temperature of the committee.

it's interesting -- the more members of the senate now who openly talk about that, it's creeping up a little bit. not going to rise to the level where it is very strong, serious provision -- i don't know, but we are not going to prejudge it. but it's on the table. >> chairman camp? >> i try to make not many declarative statements on tax reform because we are trying to look at the whole thing in its entirety, but i do not support a carbon limit. lex maybe later. laughter -- >> maybe later. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> copperheads of tax reform was a three-year process, not something. -- tax reform was a three-year process -- comprehensive tax reform was a three-year process, not

something that got done overnight. have you talked about other ways that your process could tie in with deficit reduction bargains? >> first of all, you are right -- it took a little while, but we have been on this for a while, too. hearingsad almost 30 on this form, which is not something that has just been hatched in the last several weeks or months. dave and i and others have talked very seriously about reform and what form it should be for a couple of years, actually. we have had a good number of hearings. second, the assumption is tax reform has to be this session of this congress. it may be this session of this

congress. it may not be. 1986 was an election year, so it's possible. in addition, i think it will be difficult to match corporate- only reform for several reasons. one is the majority of business income in america today is generated through pastors -- pass-throughs. if we have significant corporate reform, by definition, that will adversely affect the pass-throughs unless we address those as well to create individual income taxes. caresbusiness really about pass-through reform because most small businesses are not see corpse -- c corps. it is premature to know exactly how that will fit together, but what we do with base-broadening

revenue is going to be -- it is a very significant question. i probed that question every time i meet with senators, and i find some significant gift with republican senators. it is private right now. it's not public, and it may not ever become public. or it might be -- i don't know. but right now, the administration would like and many democrats would like to repeal the sequester or dramatically modify it. and one significant deficit reduction -- everybody does. even though the need for deficit reduction is less urgent than it has been in the past. thewhen the rubber meets

road, then revenue will very much be discussed. there are a lot of ways to skin a cat. i have learned her life, there's almost always a solution. you have to keep looking for it. it may not be immediately obvious. you keep working and you find a way, and i'm looking for that way to find a compromise between republicans and democrats and how to deal with that. if we can get tax reform because it is so needed and find a compromise so that tax reform is not stalled and bottomed out because we have not else with the revenue question as well.

>> i would just say that on sort of the main point of your question, i'm not trying to let that stop our discussions on the policy issues that would make up a tax reform bill. obviously, i'm meeting with every democrat on my committee. many of them say they would like to see more revenue. just say, "let's not just go to our corners. let's move forward on the policy and see what we get." on our side, we think the revenue that was delivered at the end of last year was a significant amount. we are seeing the deficit score reduced. revenue is expected to double over the next decade, but again, i do not think it is productive to focus on where we disagree. there are so many good simplification policies we agree on. one of the things 80% of americans agree with is the code is to come located. -- it is too complicatedi think

the average person should be able to fill out their own taxes. small businesses -- 90% have to hire preparers because they are afraid they will get audited, especially now. i think we need to look at those issues, and clearly, at some point, we will have to address that, but i think it is better to look at that in the context of what are the policies you are getting as opposed to opening that. this is something that, as you mentioned, simpson-bowles has looked at. the first hearing i had as chairman two-and-a-half years ago was on tax reform. we both have been working on this for a lot of years. there has been a lot of work done, and i would say we have had a lot of years where the economy has not come back as strongly as it should, so i do not think we have a lot of time to waste. i think we need to look at -- a quarter of the kids coming out of college cannot find a job. the fact that there are records

-- the highest level of people since the carter administration of people who have just stopped looking for work. even if you have a job, you may not have had a wage increase in a while. that is what is really driving me on this, the jobs and economy issue, and also the complexity of the code, with all the changes max mentioned that have occurred. what really is being called into question as well is not only the integrity of the irs and that whole system, but -- does somebody get a better deal simply because they can figure out through some sharper lawyer or accountant how to lessen the tax burden but not the average guy and i don't know how to do that and i'm paying at the top? i think there's a fairness issue we need to look at in the tax code as well. that is also driving this because -- and in terms of the business side, we have mentioned that as well. >> there are 42 definitions of small business in the code. 42.

i might make another point here -- if we do not form the code in this congress, we won't, in my judgment, until 2015, 2016, and so forth. beyond that, it will be 2017, 2018. if we do not in this congress, soon it will be presidential election season, and i think it will be very difficult to pass tax reform in that context. just think how much we will have lost by then. >> we have about eight minutes left. >> the online sales tax legislation -- i wonder what your view is on that. and there was an interesting breakdown on the republican side of the senate where the older republicans, for the most part, and younger -- supported it, and younger, for the most part, supported it -- opposed it.

have you seen any generational splits in your party? >> that particular issue is one that is not in the ways and means committee. this is where our jurisdiction does not quite line up. we do not have jurisdiction of state tax issues. that would be judiciary. i try not to tell other chairman what to do. i think the legislation has changed, and i think we will have to see what we actually look at in the house. i think a million is a little too low in terms of the threshold for where you have to comply with different tax provisions, but again, i will let the judiciary committee work that issue, and we will see what the committee reports out, and then i will take a position on it. >> any sign of the generational split on the house side >> do you see younger members looking at this different than older

members in any way? >> i have not really analyzed it in that way. i just have not -- i guess i cannot really answer that. youhairman baucus, would like to anger your older members and comment? >> i don't see any generational split, frankly. there are fewer of us, and we tend to -- i just not -- i just do not see that. >> earlier this week, senator coburn wrote an op-ed where he talked about, among other things, tax reform. he said the best thing the president could do to help his administration would be to give the house ways and means committee an offer they cannot ignore. what can the president do to make this happen?

dohe doing what he needs to to help move this at this point in time? lookingnk he wisely is at tax reform the same ways he has approached immigration -- that is, carefully. in this climate, it might not be wise to be too upfront too soon to early. -- too early. it may cause a bit of a storm, but he is very involved. i have met with them on tax reform. i meet frequently with his chief of staff, who, by the way, i find is very good. he is going out of his way coming up to the hill talking to members in the house and senate and engaging congress on

lots of different issues. the president clearly cares about a fiscal solution, clearly cares -- does care about tax reform. in the context of tax reform. generated in the context of tax reform. there will have to be some revenue somewhere, and they know that at the white house and a trying to figure out someway to deal with it it. they have different personalities, different tiles. president reagan had his own approach to the presidency, and president obama has his. but i think he has wisely been careful. the degree to which he is raising his profile on the forum.

>> i will say that the president put in his budget revenue- neutral corporate reform, which is quite a change from where he was two years ago, and with just sort of a working paper, and i think that as a result of the discussion that has occurred. and when he came and spoke to the republican conference, he said basically, "i may not be where you are on the individual side, but i will work with you peaked -- i will work with you. i'm paraphrasing there. if you look at the testimony, they have not slammed the door on this. at this particular stage, it may be appropriate to see what can the committees do. is this real or not? obviously, we are both committed to working very hard to make this reality because i do not think we can afford to wait. i think the time is now.

>> briefly, we still would like to see a budget conference so- called regular order. they do not want to get ahead of themselves on reform. they are hoping maybe there will be a budget conference. i do not know if there will be. i admire those who are trying so hard to get a conference agreement, but they are still not there yet. >> we have about three minutes. last question. theou mentioned e.g.-8 at beginning -- you mentioned the g-8 at the beginning. two big corporate issues being discussed next week. they are discussing measures that will require companies to discuss revenue changes and the other is country-by-country tax reporting. if the u.s. makes a commitment

next week on some of these issues, do you support them >> will they be able to pass the legislation along those lines, whether separately or within tax reform? >> those are two issues we have not really fully vetted in the ways and means committee. obviously, if the administration makes a statement on that, we will have to ramp up and take a serious look at that. some of that came up yesterday. they were mentioned sort of tangentially an hour tax haven hearing yesterday -- in our tax haven hearing yesterday. there is an oecd report coming out july 1, and i think it would beheld for to get that before we move too far on that issue -- it would be helpful to get that before we move too far on that issue. as i say, we have not really as deep on those two issues as we will after there are commitments made on behalf of the united dates by the administration.

>> that's where we are, too. >> on that, thank you so much for doing this, chairman baucus, chairman camp. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> today on c-span, "washington journal "is next.

that is followed by the cyber commander, general keith alexander and later fbi director robert mueller testifies and programs and cyber security. >> the cspan video library has reached a milestone. since its started in 2007, there are more than 200,000 hours of original cspan programming. totally searchable and free, a public service created by private industry, america's cable companies. your calls, tweets, and e-mails and we will talk about u.s. government security clearance. will be followed by discussion on the faith and freedom coalition conference in washington.

later, a look at the national theerhood initiative with curbs vice president of communications and development. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning. in the news today officials say the company will receive the request for information from government entities at the last half of 2012. those requests involve 19,000 facebook accounts. the washington post reports that contest nine cia bases in turkey will be kept ground for limited shipments of ammunition to syrian rebel groups. in iran, early voting. in the west a new poll -- in